SATBIR SAGWAL,KARNAL vs. PRCIT, KARNAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,05,00,880/- to the assessee's income. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and the proper procedure for handling non-appearance of the assessee before the appellate authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.11.2018 of the CIT(A), Karnal, relating to assessment year 2011-12.
The assessee in his various grounds of appeal has challenged the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the various additions made by the AO.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO, in the order passed u/s 143(3)/263, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,08,67,030/- and agricultural income at Rs.1,23,000/- as against the income determined u/s 143(3) at Rs.3,66,230/- wherein he made addition of Rs.1,05,00,880/-. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution.
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the materials available on record. We find, despite number of opportunities granted by the ld.CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) to substantiate its case for which the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do instead of dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) and substantiate its case, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026